In response to possible confusion over the revisions to the spam rule we'd like to provide some general clarifications to this and a few other rules.
Spam:
Spam in the general sense is a contentless post, a post which contributes nothing to an active conversation. Spam mucks up threads, makes them difficult to follow, and introduces discontinuities which if sufficiently large will kill a discussion. As moderators we enforce this and other rules to maintain quality in the community, we don't do so simply to be arbitrary. That being said, by convention we allow for exceptions. These are inherited from moderators long passed, they're engrained in your habits as posters, and when not taken to an extreme they don't diminish, or even enhance the experience of participating here.
For the longest time the statement congratulations <alliance> (in response to an OP) has been permissible, while a simple congratulations was by previous consensus prohibited. Our adjustment to the existing rule was made in the spirit of allowing this and other similar statements of general approval to be voiced (seeing as semantically equivalent posts were also allowed). More recently it has been asked if this general statement of approval also applies to the responses within a thread, as opposed to being limited strictly to the OP. An example of this might be: Person 1 makes a witty retort to the OP; Person 2 says "sounds right" while quoting Person 1. In this case Person 2 is not conveying general approval to an announcement, they are instead making a QFT post (quoted for truth) which always has been and remains to this day spam.
In the initial announcement of the rule change, the statement conveys the intent to limit the scope of this relaxation to those directed at an OP. In it the second sentence reads: "From here on out, the staff will no longer issue warns for one word posts expressing general approval to an announcement (e.g "Hail", "yay", "congrats" ect)".
Importance of Making Reduction Requests:
This goes without saying, but if you've racked up warns and you haven't been warned recently (last 30 days at the minimum)- put in a request for a reduction. Do not let your warns stack up to five or you will be banned if you cross the threshold. We don't enjoy expelling people from the game, make it easy on us/yourselves and address old warning points if you have them.
That being said, we're not invalidating proper warns issued before any current or future rule change. These adjustments don't come with a general amnesty attached, if the warn is recent it sticks, if it is old then ask for a reduction.
OOC-IC- the 'game':
The word 'game' is not off limits, if you want to utilize it in reference to in character behavior, or an in character situation then feel at liberty to do so. However using it in reference to the real world browser game cybernations remains off limits.
Here's a cute example created by Keelah:
Discussion of Moderation Issues: 'Cuba is an Auctor multi'
Discussion of moderation issues has always been restricted ground. In the moderation blog we allow for more open discourse on the rules, sharing of opinions, Q/A ect. However, beyond these abstract subjects and particular venue, the standard remains as it has been. Multis have become a hot topic of late, there has been suspicion and indeed factual occurrence of cheating through the use of multiple accounts. Out of frustration or simply a desire to tar an opponent this has become infused into public discussion. As a last component of this public service announcement I'd like to reiterate that those perpetuating these topics in public forums will be warned. If you suspect or know of cheating, you should file a report on it in the section of the moderation forums dedicated to game abuse.
We'll continue to roll out clarifications as needed, but for now that is all.